Do many (a)theists unjustly ignore philosophical arguments?

[harvey1]

I realize that there's many (a)theists that accept philosophical arguments, but there's many here who seem very distrustful of philosophical arguments. Indeed, there's some (a)theists who give me the impression that they would never change their philosophy based on a philosophical argument. My question is how highly do you think most (a)theists rate the importance of philosophy in establishing what they believe with regard to God's existence. Is philosophy unimportant to most (a)theists--is that the right policy? Or, do many or most (a)theists unjustly ignore philosophical arguments because they are distrustful of any beliefs that are not established directly by science(/faith)?

[harvey1]

Well, if you do not want your logical falacies [sic] pointed out to you, please quit repeating them!!! You feel free to insult our intelligence, but feel you shouldn't have to face your own faults. Believe me, I am far from the only person on these fori [sic] to notice them. It is your arguements [sic] which are ridiculous and pointing that out to you is my purpose. Your ARGUEMENTS [sic] are simply garbage, only you can do anything about that. Philosophy without valid evidence to redirect and correct it is sophistry, useless as science.

As I pointed out, it was not your arguments that caused me not to respond to your post, it is your uncivil behavior. If you improve your civility, then I'll respond to you. I think the reader is well aware of the need to respond only to civil posts, so I'm confident that others will understand.

[McCulloch]

Moderator Warning
Keep it civil. It was enough to point out where you feel the errors in the logic and evidence were.

What a load of male bovine droppings!!!
[...]
The rest of your premises are equally garbage, sophistry to inject religious views as having validity in the sciences. Garbage!!!

[Joe]

This appears to have been answered appropriatly already, so my response may be of little or no value. Philosophy is but a beginning answer to a question possibly based on some facts of observance that may have been misunderstood, but appear to support ones belief. Another may find the error in ones interpretation and that too may be wrong, but leads to another contradicting philosophy. As the subject is openly debated an attempt is made to sway others to their personal philosophy and this is most easily done by finding more supportive evidence which one can use as proof. This is how science works beginning with philosophy, theories, and finally proofs. Even so as pointed out in other responses, science is never 100% conclusive in it's results as often there are factors beyond our capacity which are yet to be known and may eventually cause modification to the laws we have come to accept in the past. Often these discrepancies are not of major consequence and the laws we have come to accept and use are not discarded completely but in some cases the new understanding is found to allow a greater understanding of something we have just began to become aware of.

So I would state that there is no mistrust of philosophy but it is questioned and open to many different views which ultimately tend to lead us to an acceptable answer. When you ask someone a question and the response is "I think ...", you might consider that a philosophy and should you ask another the same question you might receive a totally different answer, but when you receive the same answer from most everyone you ask it tends to show that it is no longer a philosophy but an accepted fact, meaning that it has been put to tests and found near universal agreement. It still may not be absolutely correct, and subject to change.

We all have beliefs, but knowledge is based on facts, and even they can change as we learn more. Knowledge is a quest, and as such it should be constantly sought, not just seeking to find ways to support ones views, but seeking out facts even when they completely destroy ones views. The truth is just such, it is true without need for fabrication to support it. If sought out the truth will eventually reveal itself.

[Grumpy]

harvey1

As I pointed out, it was not your arguments that caused me not to respond to your post, it is your uncivil behavior. If you improve your civility, then I'll respond to you. I think the reader is well aware of the need to respond only to civil posts, so I'm confident that others will understand.

I think most on these fori recognize a dodge when they see one. I may be acerbic at times, but you just keep repeating the same tired logical fallacies and I will keep knocking them down for all the other posters to see. Your behavior also leaves a lot to be desired, but I'm a big boy and can withstand your superior attitude and the airs of superior education you exhibit(like the digs about spelling(sic)) and see through your cover of obscuring sophistry to see the errors of your logic and the disconnection from reality they bring about.

Denigrate me, denigrate my Atheism, but you cannot answer my logic so you quickly hide behind your hurt feelings. Sorry to have hurt your pride, the bruises will eventually fade. But my logic still stands.

Grumpy

[Bugmaster]

Any claim to knowledge requires assumptions. Acceptable assumptions are those assumptions that if they are not true lead to an unrecognizable world.

Sure, but there aren't too many of those. Philosophers breed assumptions like rabbits, way above and beyound what is necessary. For example, consider solipsism. It is a worldview which is funcnally equivalent to regular, run-of-the-mill worldiviews such as materialism or dualism (depending on flavor), with one extra assumption thrown in. Philosophers can debate it ad infinitum, whereas scientists would just shrug and move on.

So, for example, if science were to prove that we don't exist

Science operates based on evidence, first and foremost. There's ample evidence that we do, in fact, exist; thus, I don't see it as very likely that science will disprove our existence any time soon. Actually, philosophy is more likely to indulge in such tangents (solipsism strikes again).

Well, you do realize that there are many, many assumptions being taken for granted when you look at fossils in the ground, right?

Like what ? I mean, besides the very basic assumption that "I appear to have senses and they appear to be feeding me information about an external world", and ye olde Descartran "I exist".

Actually, philosophers are more likely to engage in fierce debate about these kind of base assumptions that many in science often consider to be absurd discussions. I think this suggests that philosophers for the most part are also dedicated (as is science) to truth.

Well... truth, or rhetoric -- in philosophy, it's hard to tell. As I said above, philosophers can hold heated debates about all kinds of things that science simply does not care about, because they have a very low probability of ever being discovered to be true.

That's my point, again: in philosophy, pretty much anything goes. There's no external, objective standard for truth. As you pointed out correctly: as long as the philosopher is internally consistent, and doesn't disprove his own existence somehow, he's considered to be "right". That, IMO, is simply not enough.

So, for example, quantum physicists might spend no time at all trying to reconcile special relativity with quantum physics, whereas many philosophers of science spend a great deal of time analyzing the aspects of these theories where they actually collide.

...You're kidding, right ? The Grand Unified Theory is pretty much the "holy grail" of science, and physicists of all kinds have been working tirelessly around the clock to unify everything with everything else. They've had some success with electromagnetism and the electroweak force, too. Most philosophers don't even know (or don't care) what special relativity is !

Notice, though, you are claiming metaphysical knowledge as an atheist, and therefore it is terribly at odds with a rejection of aquisition of metaphysical knowledge in general. To be blunt, it comes off as "philosophy is okay just as long as it doesn't prevent me from sucking my thumb of atheism."

I'm not sure what you mean by "claiming knowledge". I claim I have good reasons for believing what I do; I do not claim to have some sort of prophetic knowledge from on high. As I keep saying, it is very possible that I am wrong about everything, but, so far, it does not appear likely.

If anyone is "sucking the thumb" here, it would be theists, because they rely on faith to back up their beliefs. Faith is not very convincing.